ForumsWEPRWhy do so many hate Muslims

185 26248
Lanod
offline
Lanod
28 posts
210

People can't seem to understand that one group does not define a religion. I know several Muslims and studied Islam and it is a noble religion if you ask me.

  • 185 Replies
wontgetmycatnip
offline
wontgetmycatnip
95 posts
975

Victims? Sorry, you've been fed half-lies. In many cases they are perpetrators, but to call them simply as the sole cause, or source of tension and violence is to stamp on truth. The war on Iraq was caused by? Saddam was the perpetrator? No go.


And if an Iraqi were to blow up one of the many members of the oil cartels that were responsible for the war, that would be understandable. But if he decided to simply attack American civilians with the excuse of "Bush kills us", that would make him no better than the gangsters killing his people.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

That doesn't justify killing people in acts of mass terror.

You're a hypocrite punisher. You're condemning others for hating Muslims for the crimes of a few, and then justifying indiscriminate murder and acts of terror because of the crimes of a few.

Yes I Justify the struggle for freedom of palestinians, Kashmiris and chechens.
this does not make me a hypocrite
As you may have noticed Those who I support, were not victim of oppression of few, rather they were victim of govrnments working on behalf of their people.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

rather they were victim of govrnments working on behalf of their people.


Like how suicide bombers were working on behalf of their religion?

Punisher, your views are nothing but hypocrisy. Acts of terror are never justified and they are not even carried out against those directly responsible. They target people uninvolved in the issue except by proxy of nationality, race, or religion. The EXACT things which you are saying justifies hatred.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Like how suicide bombers were working on behalf of their religion?

Punisher, your views are nothing but hypocrisy. Acts of terror are never justified and they are not even carried out against those directly responsible. They target people uninvolved in the issue except by proxy of nationality, race, or religion. The EXACT things which you are saying justifies hatred.

Tell me if korea occupies USA ,would you not fight them?
.
I'll tell youwhat I am for and what I am against.
A man goes in market in Pakistan/ China/ Germany/ UK and blows himself up for "killing the infidels"
That is wrong and has no place in Islam.
I am against it.
A man who'shome town is being bombed, who has lost s many to bombings and assasinations, by the hands of (insert country's name here)
which is a democracy or does have public support of the atrocities.
He goes there and kills some, message delivered, we can hit back too, mission accomplished.
Now that's what I am for.
If you infringe upon one's freedom, expect him to retaliate.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

Tell me if korea occupies USA ,would you not fight them?

I certainly wouldn't attack civilians on their mainland. If I was passionate/extreme about it and had the means, maybe the political leaders.

He goes there and kills some, message delivered, we can hit back too, mission accomplished.

Hurrah, maybe a few dozen out of millions. It doesn't send a message of strength, just of cowardice. It shows that they can't handle fighting the military. It pisses off the population, creating support for further military intervention. If you're fine with people attacking enemy civilians, don't complain about the subsequent airstrikes.
thepunisher93
offline
thepunisher93
1,830 posts
415

Hurrah, maybe a few dozen out of millions. It doesn't send a message of strength, just of cowardice. It shows that they can't handle fighting the military. It pisses off the population, creating support for further military intervention. If you're fine with people attacking enemy civilians, don't complain about the subsequent airstrikes.

No I'm not fine with attacking civilians but some times that is the exact thing which needs to be done. To send the message
"we can hurt you too"
If (insert country name here) occupies my country or constantly ravages it with air strikes,I'llsure as hell do any thing to send the message.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

To send the message "we can hurt you too"

It's ineffective. It doesn't hurt the nation at all, but brings it together. Tragedy rallies the masses. People unite against the common enemy and retaliate with the military.
Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,598 posts
3,675

If (insert country name here) occupies my country or constantly ravages it with air strikes,I'llsure as hell do any thing to send the message.


Then you're no better than the extremists you claim to disdain. Attacking civilians accomplishes nothing except to spread hatred.

some times that is the exact thing which needs to be done


Attacking civilians in acts of random terror is never what needs to be done. In fact, it only makes things worse.
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
2,325

Then you're no better than the extremists you claim to disdain. Attacking civilians accomplishes nothing except to spread hatred.


when "civilians" pull out guns and shoot people or lynch them for being gay are they really civilians?
pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

when "civilians" pull out guns and shoot people or lynch them for being gay are they really civilians?


Please stop with the generalizations
wontgetmycatnip
offline
wontgetmycatnip
95 posts
975

when "civilians" pull out guns and shoot people or lynch them for being gay are they really civilians?


Who are you talking about here?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,408 posts
2,680

Who are you talking about here?

I think he's arguing that it's ok to attack militant "civilians" overseas, but quoted the exact wrong thing, implying that American/European victims were attacking terrorists, so it was ok for the terrorists to react violently. This is why reading before quoting is important.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,370 posts
24,395

And if an Iraqi were to blow up one of the many members of the oil cartels that were responsible for the war, that would be understandable. But if he decided to simply attack American civilians with the excuse of "Bush kills us", that would make him no better than the gangsters killing his people.


Oil cartels? The war was initiated by jingoistic panicmongers, not some resource driven fat-cat conspiracy, although the latter has been known to greatly appeal to people who constantly want to believe in the fantastic.

And no, al-Qaeda was not Iraqi backed. I can't believe people still cling on to that more then a decade later.
wontgetmycatnip
offline
wontgetmycatnip
95 posts
975

Oil cartels? The war was initiated by jingoistic panicmongers, not some resource driven fat-cat conspiracy, although the latter has been known to greatly appeal to people who constantly want to believe in the fantastic.


Orly?
[url]http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011122813134071641.html[/url]
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0[/url]
[url]http://www.economist.com/node/21556977[/url]
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz[/url]
[url]http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/crude_designs_large.pdf[/url]
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,370 posts
24,395

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ⦠71641.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/busin ⦠d=all&_r=0
http://www.economist.com/node/21556977
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/i ⦠oil-juhasz
http://www.carbonweb.org/documents/crud ⦠_large.pdf


Yes really. From a narrowly selfish point of view, it didn't make sense to fight war for oil. Here's where economics kicks in. There is a world market for oil. There is no danger that a country that wants to keep the United States from getting oil can do so simply by restricting sales to the United States. The reason is that it will then want to sell its oil elsewhere. That means that someone who buys that newly freed-up oil will then want to buy less from his suppliers. Those suppliers then have oil to sell and Americans can buy that oil. It's a game of musical chairs in which the number of chairs equals the number of players. The game would be awfully boring, but in international trade, boring is good.

The only way a country's government can hurt the United States using the 'oil weapon' is to reduce its own production. But then, that country, unless it produces a huge amount of the world's supply, will hurt itself as well. And that country will hurt its oil-consuming allies and help its oil-producing enemies.

As recently as December 2012, Iraq provided the United States with approximately 14.3 million barrels of oil out of a total of about 298 million barrels imported, or 4.8 percent of our total imports. And as this chart indicates, the US was importing the highest amount of oil from Iraq before they went to war to oust Saddam Hussein.

Furthermore, the United States fully supported the United Nationsâ oil embargo against Iraq, imposed when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. They continued to support it even when it was revealed that the eventual softening of those sanctions, known as the oil for food program, revealed that Russia, France and a number of other nations were collaborating with Saddam Hussein to violate sanctions in return for billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains. Of the 52 countries named in a report compiled by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker detailing the scandal, only 28 even wanted the evidence, and the United States led the way in prosecuting those implicated.

In fact, it can be argued that the US didn't benefit that much from Iraq opening up; many other international bidders have won contracts. Furthermore, the first postwar oil license awarded by the Iraqi government in 2008 was to the state-run China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC), in the form of a $3.5 billion development contract for Iraqi oil field Al-Ahdab. In December 2009, in the second round of bids to develop Iraqâs vast untapped oil reserves (following a June auction allowing foreign companies the chance to increase production at existing fields), China and Russia emerged with the lionâs share of the contracts.

Furthermore, using simple math, one can overturn such arguments. The best survey of possible costs before the war, by William D Nordhaus, was that the simplest, quickest American victory would have cost $99 billion, with an upper limit of $1.9 trillion âif the US has a string of bad luck or misjudgments during or after the warâ.

On that basis, the cheapest war would have taken 8 years to pay for itself, assuming that the entire profits of the Iraqi oil industry could be confiscated by the Americans to pay for their invasion (about which international law might also have something to say). Rupert Murdoch was famously hopeful that the oil price would fall to $20 a barrel as result of the war, in which case Iraqi oil profits would take 30 years to pay for it. If one takes instead the actual cost of the war, it soaks up 250 years of oil profits, while Iraqâs oil reserves will be exhausted in about 100 years. Quite simply, there isn't enough oil in Iraq to justify the huge cost of invading it.
Showing 106-120 of 185